alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60320 Summary Calendar

MARK L. SALISBURY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus PHILIP MCLAURIN, In official capacity as Deputy Warden; INMATE ACCOUNTS SUPERVISOR, One unknown named Inmate Accounts Supervisor, in official capacity as Inmate Accounts Supervisor; DON GRANT, Warden; KIM WILLIAMS, in individual capacity; J. A. BANKS, in individual capacity; L. POLK, in individual capacity; MRS. COOPER; DWAYNE TAYLOR; ROBERT L. JOHNSON; WALTER BOOKER, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:99-CV-242-B-D

-------------------- April 25, 2002 Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Mark Salisbury, Mississippi prisoner # 67386, appeals the district cour t’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust prison administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. He argues that he did not intend
to include as a party to his action the person who filed the motion
to dismiss for failure to exhaust and that the magistrate judge atNo. 01-60320 -2-
the Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), hearing had excused Salisbury’s failure to exhaust.

The record does not support Salisbury’s contention that
the magistrate judge excused the exhaustion requirement in Salisbury ’s case. The district court’s dismissal of Salisbury’s complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust was not error.
See 42 U.S.C. § 1 997e(a); W endall v. Asher , 162 F.3d 887, 889-90 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED
.
|   |   | STATE      OR COUNTRY IN WHICH      SUBSIDIARY ORGANIZED |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Navistar      Financial Retail Receivables Corporation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | Delaware |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|
|   | Navistar      Financial Securities      Corporation                                                                                                      | Delaware |
|   | Truck      Engine Receivables Financing      Co                                                                                                          | Delaware |
|   | Truck      Retail Accounts      Corporation                                                                                                              | Delaware |
|   | Truck      Retail Instalment Paper      Corp                                                                                                             | Delaware |
|   | International      Truck Leasing      Corporation                                                                                                        | Delaware |
|   |  Navistar      Leasing Services, Inc.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | Delaware |

----
Order filed, October 08, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00591

- CR

____________ MOHAMMAD SAEED ALZ AHRANI , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Crim Ct at Law No 7

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1905659



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due September 15, 2014

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the cou rt. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Sandra Powell , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
# 3

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 4

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 24

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 39

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 46

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 47

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 49

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 74

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 75

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 76

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 77

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 78

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 80

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 81

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 82

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18

# 83

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 11-0702

IN RE JAZZERCISE, INC. AND KELLIE ELLINGTON

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relators’ emergency motion for temporary relief, filed September 7, 2011, is granted.  The trial set for September 13, 2011, the April 7, 2011 Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for JNOV or Alternatively Motion for New Trial, and the May 9, 2011 Order Denying Defendants’ Post-Trial Motions in Cause No. DC-07-06369, styled *Patricia A. Coats v. Jazzercise, Inc. and Kellie Fox*, in the 68th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The real party in interest is requested to respond to relators’ petition for writ of mandamus on or before September 19, 2011.

3.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this September 9, 2011.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
March 26 , 2013



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LIZZIE J. LOVALL, IN DIVIDUALLY; KEITH L. SHAW; INDIVIDUALLY: KENNETH L. YOUNG; I NDIVIDUALLY; KIM L. SHAW, INDIVIDUALLY

, Appellant s

NO. 14

- 13

- 00071

- CV V.

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, INDIV IDUALLY, OFFICIALLY AND VICARIOUSLY; MAY WAL KER, CONSTABLE, PREC INCT 7, INDIVIDUALLY; RUTH M CDUGLE, INDIVIDUALLY ; DARLA TURNER, INDIVIDUALLY; JOHN K . GEORGE, OFFICIALLY , INDIVIDUALLY; GOW

MING CHAO, INDIVIDUA LLY; ET AL , Appellee s

______ __________________________ Today the Court heard appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on December 27, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Lizzie J. Lovall, Individually; Keith L. Shaw; Individually: Kenneth L. Young; Individually; Kim L. Shaw, Individually.

We further order this decision certified bel ow for observance.
18.04
Order entered August 22 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 01118
- CV
BRIGETTA D'OLIVIO , Appellant

V.
HILARY THOMPSON HUTSON , Appellee On Appeal from the Cou n ty Court at Law No. 2

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 002
- 02704
- 2020

O RDER Before the Court is appellant Br igetta D ’ Olivio ’ s emergency motion for ruling , in which she asks us to rule o n the following motions : (1) emergency
motion to reconsider the order denying appellant’s emergency motion to abate and (2) emergency motion for permission to extend time to file motion for rehearing
and motion for en banc recon sideration

. The Court has ruled on these motions

. Accordingly, w e DENY the motion for r uling as moot

.

/s/ ROBBI E PARTIDA

- KIPNESS JUSTICE
From: Christine.Donhardt@memphistn.gov
To: Holt, Jim Cc: Rogers, Bob ; Fritchie, Denis ; Zeanah, John Subject: RE: Voluntary measures 2-15 jh
Date: Friday, February 13, 2015 3:11:36 PM Attachments: Voluntary measures 2-15 jh jzedits.docx

Jim, See attached for our updates. We kept the track changes on so you can see what we changed.
Thanks!

From: Holt, Jim [mailto:Jim.Holt@shelbycountytn.gov] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:11 AM To: Donhardt, Christine Cc: Rogers, Bob; Fritchie, Denis Subject: Voluntary measures 2-15 jh

Hi Christine,

We are developing our new redesignation and maintenance plan, because we have data that
shows we are now below the current ozone standard. The attached document was prepared for the off-set plan that was submitted to EPA last spring/summer. It needs to be updated. There are various projects discussed and would you look at it and if you know the present status provide a comment or update? For those projects that you don’t know about, we may discuss when you are
here next week. I may need some guidance on who to contact on those projects, because I can’t remember now how I got the information for most of them.

Hope all is well. Jim
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 6 June 2006 — Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

(Case C-251/06)

(2006/C 212/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Questions referred

----

(1)  English special edition: Series I Chapter 1969 (II), p. 412.

(2)OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23.

----
Exhibit 11.1


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                          EARNINGS PER SHARE
                         PRIMARY COMPUTATION
             Years Ended June 30, 1997, 1996 and 1995
        ($ in millions, except share and per share amounts)


                                            1997         1996          1995
                                           ------       ------       -------
<S>                                        <C>          <C>          <C>
Basis for computation of earnings per 
  common and common equivalent shares:
    Earnings from continuing operations    $185.7       $153.7       $136.7
    Deduct dividends on 4 Percent 
      cumulative preferred stock              (.4)         (.4)         (.4)
                                           -------      -------      -------
    Earnings from continuing operations
      available for common shareholders     185.3        153.3        136.3
    Discontinued operations                   4.4         58.2         43.6
                                           -------      -------      -------
    Available for common shareholders      $189.7       $211.5       $179.9
                                           =======      =======      =======



Number of common and common equivalent
  shares:
    Weighted average shares outstanding    73,837,424   75,183,729   76,687,154
    Shares issuable upon exercise of 
      stock options, net of shares 
      assumed to be repurchased             1,222,803    1,159,663      770,960
                                           ----------   ----------   ---------- 
                                           75,060,227   76,343,392   77,458,114
                                           ==========   ==========   ==========


Earnings per common and common 
  equivalent share:
    Continuing operations                  $2.47        $2.01        $1.76
    Discontinued operations                  .06          .76          .56
                                           ------       ------       ------
    Net earnings                           $2.53        $2.77        $2.32
                                           ======       ======       ======

</TABLE>
PHIP\476921\1 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

_______________________________________________ 

PENNSYLVANIA INSERT CORPORATION , ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 

Plaintiff, ) 2:05-cv-04378 HB 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

BOWCO INDUSTRIES, INC. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

_______________________________________________ 

Notice of Dismissal 

(filed electronically) 

 Pursuant to F. R. Civ. P., Rule 41(a)(1) plaintiff hereby dismisses this action 

prior to service by an adverse party of an answer or motion for judgment. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Pennsylvania Insert Corporation. 

 By: s/ JOHN J. MARSHALL 

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 

1000 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 

Berwyn, PA 19312 

Tele: (610) 993-2274) 

 Fax: (610) 993-8585 

 Email: john.marshall@dbr.com 

PA 30,574 

 December 08, 2005 

Case 2:05-cv-04378-HB Document 4 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1577 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1577

  To amend title 5, United States Code, with respect to the judicial 
     review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory 
                              provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 18, 2017

 Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Lee, Mr. Cruz, 
   Mr. Sasse, Mr. Flake, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. 
   Lankford) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 5, United States Code, with respect to the judicial 
     review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory 
                              provisions.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Separation of Powers Restoration Act 
of 2017''.

SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY INTERPRETATIONS.

    Section 706 of title 5, United States Code, is amended, in the 
matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``all relevant questions of 
law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions'' and inserting 
``de novo all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation 
of constitutional and statutory provisions and rules''.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0114. WILLIAM M. TAYLOR v. THE STATE.

WilliamM. Taylor was convicted of aggravated sodomy and childmolestation. 

His convictions were affirmed on appeal. Taylor v. State, 174 Ga. App. 323 (329

SE2d 625) (1985). He was released on parole but his parole was revoked in 1989

after he committed a new offense. In 2016, Taylor filed a petition for post-conviction

relief and an extraordinary motion for new trial. The trial court denied both the

petition and the motion, and Taylor filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

After a criminal conviction has been affirmed, a defendant seeking to challenge

his conviction hasthree available remedies: he may “file an extraordinary motion for

new trial, OCGA § 5-5-41, a motion in arrest of judgment, OCGA § 17-9-61, or a

petition for habeas corpus, OCGA § 9-14-40.” Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217 (1)

(686 SE2d 786) (2009). None of these remedies support the instant appeal. 

To the extent Taylor’s pleadings constituted an extraordinary motion for new

trial, he wasrequired to follow the discretionary appeal proceduresto obtain appellate

review of the trial court’s denial. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (7); Balkcom v. State, 227

Ga. App. 327, 329 (489 SE2d 129) (1997). Taylor’s pleadings cannot be construed

as a motion in arrest of judgment, because he did not challenge the sufficiency of his

indictment. See Motes v. State, 262 Ga. App. 728, 729 (586 SE2d 682) (2003) (“A

motion in arrest asserts that the indictment contains a defect on its face affecting the

substance and real merits of the offense charged and voiding the indictment, such as

failure to charge a necessary element of a crime.”). Finally, Taylor’s pleadings cannot

be construed as a request for habeas relief because they were filed in his criminal

August 29, 2017
case, not in his county of incarceration. See OCGA § 9-14-43. 

Under the circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which

is hereby DISMISSED. See Balkcom, 227 Ga. App. at 332 (dismissing appeal from

denial of extraordinary motion for new trial); Harper, 286 Ga. at 218 (2) (dismissing

appeal from denial of motion to vacate a criminal conviction).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/29/2017
1

Ogulei, David

From: Damico, Genevieve

Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:52 PM

To: Woolums, Jane; Ogulei, David; Morgan, Andrea; Mooney, John

Subject: FW: Meeting

Attachments: 6-5-13 Czerniak Thank You Summary Letter.pdf

From: Czerniak, George 

Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:50 PM 

To: Damico, Genevieve; Marshall, Sarah 

Subject: FW: Meeting 

From: Doug Harris [mailto:doug.harris@veoliaes.com] 

Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 3:29 PM 

To: Czerniak, George 

Subject: Meeting 

George, 

We appreciate you meeting with us last week(see attached letter). We received the CPT divided comments from Sara 

last Thursday and have set up a meeting on Tuesday the 11th to review. Dennis, Dave, and Mike should be 

In Chicago by 8:00am tomorrow. Also Joe Kellmeyer has contacted Genevieve per our commitment during the meeting.

Doug Harris 

General Manager 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC 

7 Mobile Ave. 

Sauget, IL 62201 

Office 618-271-2804 Ext. 101 

Cell: 618-616-7420 

Fax: 618-271-2128 

Doug.harris@veoliaes.com

www.veoliaes.com

Service First. Safety Always 

This e-mail message from Veolia Environmental Services North America Corp. is for the sole use of the intended recipient 

and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use disclosure or distribution is 

prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 

copies of the original message and delete same from all computers.
# sec6_rbalsh_2024

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin 2023-04	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RBS - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10March 2023
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                         Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
INTERCO INCORPORATED:

We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statement (No. 
33-65714) on Form S-8 of INTERCO INCORPORATED of our report dated January 30, 
1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of INTERCO INCORPORATED and 
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1994 and 1995, and the related consolidated 
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows and related 
schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1995,
which report appears in the December 31, 1995 annual report on Form 10-K of 
INTERCO INCORPORATED.


                                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
February 1, 1996